Tuesday, October 13, 2015

We also agree that the opposition’s numbers are small relative to greater fandom and the general population. Yet despite being vastly outnumbered, look what they’ve achieved.

They halved the Big Five’s SFF sales, took over SFWA, and dominated Worldcon–all in 20 years.

You correctly argue that these institutions are irrelevant. But they weren’t prior to that 20-year march. I’m all for discussing which hills we’re ready to die on, but before we can have that discussion, everyone needs to understand how the enemy operates.

They’re experts at infiltrating and subverting organizations–especially when they’re at a numeric disadvantage. San Diego, SLCCC, and Gen Con have lots of thankless scut jobs that Morlocks will gladly take to get their feet in the door and multiply.

How many of those cons have codes of conduct? All it takes is one infiltrator on a committee and the other members’ complacency to weaponize the rules against normal fans.

Larry posted a while back about a guy who complained that Gen Con isn’t safe for minorities. That’s how it starts.

I’m all for starting new awards and moving on to greener convention pastures. But unless the unequivocal message is sent that entryism will not be tolerated, anything we build will look just like Worldcon and trad publishing inside of 2 decades.

Conservative strategy is guaranteed failure. Conservatism is the prevent defense of politics. It doesn't always fail, but it fails often enough that anyone who advocates it as a strategy should be assumed to be inept and incompetent.

I am working on developing a proper Code of Conduct designed to not only keep out entryists, but eject them as soon as they reveal themselves. If you want peace, prepare for war. If you want freedom of thought and speech, prepare to police the would be policemen.

It sucks that, thus far, the most efficient way to take down SJWs is to deploy their own weapons against them, such as the Weaponized Code of Conduct designed to keep them out, or the Rhetoric spoken of in your book. There is justification, of course. They used them first, and like nuclear weapons, you either respond in kind or face annihilation. So there is no question that it's the right thing to do.

But it's pretty shitty that it's come to this. When the SJWs are defeated and consigned to history's dustbin, somebody needs to stick a copy of SJWs Always Lie on the tombstone with a warning to the future: don't let this shit happen again.

@3 The belief that a logical and internally consistent argument will just naturally win people over is spurious. Conservatives and especially libertarians constantly make this mistake when presenting their ideas and defending things. Nearly every bit of the left doesn't care one bit about logic or consistency, they only care about their feelings winning out.

I've been saying that it's not possible for a Code of Conduct to be good, because by their existence they imply the need for such things. But I thought the one Vox tweeted was pretty solid. What was it, something like, "1. Anyone who suggests changing this code is expelled. 2. See #1."? It's like creating an empty file and setting its permissions to 000 to keep anyone else from creating it.

"They’re experts at infiltrating and subverting organizations–especially when they’re at a numeric disadvantage."

Yep. They use their apparent weakness as a tool: "Come on, you can let us have this one more small victory. Look how strong you are and how pitiful we are; we won't be able to hurt you with it."

I remember reading some articles by Heinlein (I think it was in Expanded Universe) about how communists would infiltrate organizations and take them over by taking over the jobs that need to get done in any group (the organizing and so forth) that nobody else wants to do. So this is deja vu all over again.

Now, if he were to expand his vision to the construction of a system of governance intended to perpetuate a stable human society into the future indefinitely, and if he were to incorporate the truths behind human reproductive strategies and insights from Austrian economics, he'd end up with the Law of Moses, and jettison the concept of individual rights.

It turns out that homosexuals, adulterers, cads, rapists, the incestuous, the bestial, atheists, and so on, ought to be killed because given their high time preference if they were in any position to affect the administration of the law, they would alter it. Casting them out would simply give them opportunity among the enemies of the society to agitate against it.

Of course, such a society, as ancient Israel was, must be opt-in. So it would be just to execute the penalties upon those who agreed to it - they literally asked for it.

More Hoaxing http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/another-anti-gay-hate-crime-turns-out-to-be-a-big-hoax/It’s like Rolling Stone there are just no STR8 YT x-tian men willing to do the jobs blacks & Hispanics do.

Signs of life 10-12-2015 Dresden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOyAdwfTBNM compare to the little pic from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/13/us-europe-migrants-germany-gallows-idUSKCN0S71VC20151013-BGS

In one of the CoC discussions (I think it was the Linux one) someone pointed out that this idea of extreme civility in order to respect everyone's feelings is actually an American thing, and that in some cultures that's considered an insult, because it means you don't respect the person enough to be straight with him.

I don't know if that's true or if the guy was black knighting (or both), but it's awesome, because it frames the SJWs as American cultural imperialists. It thoroughly confuses innocent bystanders.

And such a system cannot be subject to electioneering, for the way to be elected is to offer to diminish or eliminate the requirements of the law upon a favored population in exchange for votes, and / or to offer to increase the burdens of the law upon a disfavored population (more or less auctioning stolen goods or assigning burdens), thus seeking to alter the law.

Remember - this law is THE solution to perpetuating a stable human society into the future, so seeking to alter it is to announce you are an enemy to society and would destroy everything for your own short-term gain.

Probably why the priesthood of ancient Israel was hereditary and the priests locked in at what amounts to subsistence-levels.

Homosexuals, anciently, were a substitute for birth control, which is not conducive to long-term human mating strategies, on top of homosexuals having high time preference.

In fact, we can build a case against tolerance of homosexuality based on normal economics - the relative costs of orgasms between men and men vs. men and women - and reproductive biology in light of long-term survival of a society. There is no practical upside that I can see to tolerance, but I can see a lot of upside in power-seeking for appearing tolerant and facilitating the collapse of sexual discipline. Again, it's a short-term gain in exchange for a long-term pain - death, even, for the society involved.

Consider that for a woman to have sex in absence of birth control, she runs a high risk of pregnancy, which consumes a lot of resources and may even cost her life. If the man declines to support and sustain his reproductive partner and child, then she takes upon herself all the risks. Clearly, a woman's best sexual strategy would be to not put out unless the man were willing to commit his resources to her and his progeny through her. So she waits for marriage.

On the other hand, the guy has very little incentive to marry for orgasms, if homosexuality is openly practiced. He can go get his rocks off whenever he wants without impregnating his partners. Between the local "John" and sweet Marsha, John gives all the fun and none of the financial drawbacks, whereas Marsha will almost certainly incur a life-altering cost.

So he picks John over Marsha.

Marsha, on the other hand, seeing her biological clock ticking down, and wanting children as normal women are wont to do, lowers her price to compete in the sexual marketplace. She stops waiting for marriage and instead hopes to cuckold some sucker by claiming her child is his. (This problem is why paternity tests rather than marriages take place in certain populations.) But most guys won't take the chance there either. She's not loose enough to guarantee the chicken won't come home to roost.

Jane, on the other hand, sees guys just wanna have fun, and most of them prefer women; they just don't want kids. So she sees an avenue to financial gain by offering her pillar of fire to whatever pointed prophet pays to spew the word of life in her. And they do pay, and whatever children she has or would have are either raised without a father or killed in utero or shortly after birth. Since she's a known slut, she can't stick anyone with the bill for her kids. Everyone's got plausible deniability.

And thus we see that open homosexuality breaks the long-term stable heterogamous reproductive strategy, opens up war between the sexes, encourages prostitution, destroys self-discipline, and kills the society in question.

And that's before we even get to talking about the venereal diseases, psychological problems, loss of love or never loving at all, and the increased incidences of rapes which would likely transpire when men are trained, or have trained themselves, to see everything on two legs as a receptacle for semen.

There is no upside that I can see. And the same analysis holds for bestiality, as well.

Conservatives are just too tolerant. They see some neck bearded obese fedora wearing pimply long-hair and think, well, I guess he can be ignored just to make my coffee/pump my gas/flip my burgers. Then the next thing you know *BAM* he's wearing a furry brony outfit and molesting your children as "therapy" for all your patriarchyz, and rape culturez, and Christopherz Columbus.

idea of extreme civility in order to respect everyone's feelings is actually an American thing

Its an extreme of "polite", upper class society. Watching what you say around vulnerable people (women) and maintaining strict social boundaries were its hallmarks. Jane Austen portrayed that politeness in her novels and Mrs. Bennett was very easily triggered.

I don't think it originates in America. It is very prevalent in 19th century british novels and I didn't think Europeans considered us as trend setters at the time.

That is a bizarre essay. Its hard to see what his intent was as it was an unfinished piece published ahead of schedule, but he simultaneously affirms genetic differences between races (that don't stop at the neck) while claiming White Privelege.

The problem is not that privilege (ie, difference) exists, the problem is one of pride, in that people with advantages tend to end up believing they are solely responsible for their possession of said advantages.

But really the only merit any of us can honestly claim is that we swam faster than a few hundred million other sperm, and in fact that wasnt actually me, since I am genetically, materially, psychologically, and spiritually quite distinct from that heroic swimmer.

Its an extreme of "polite", upper class society. Watching what you say around vulnerable people (women) and maintaining strict social boundaries were its hallmarks. Jane Austen portrayed that politeness in her novels and Mrs. Bennett was very easily triggered.

Eh, I dunno that they're related.

Political correctness wasn't really a thing in Britain as recently as the 70's/80's. It certainly didn't exist in the 19th century, when you could say whatever you liked about Hindoos, Mohammedans, Chinee, Hottentots, Spaniards, Colonials, the French, the Krauts, the Irish, those frightful Finns, and other folks unlucky enough not to have been born Englishmen.

As far as I know it was customary in Europe and America in the 19th century to treat women - all but the lowest classes of women (i.e. the sort of women who frequented pubs) - with more refined manners than one would treat another man. That wasn't due to fear of giving offence though. An aristocrat probably wouldn't give a tuppeny fuck about hurting the feelings of the lower orders.

Political correctness is based on fear, guilt, and shame. Manners are based on holding oneself to higher standards.

Sheesh, is that mush even written by a man? It sure reads like a woman wrote it. It's exactly like Vox said, the purpose of having women in an organization is to have women in that organization.

It's funny how they always act as though losing people like Sharp is a disadvantage, and that having an atmosphere that's "toxic" to people who talk about "toxic atmospheres" is damaging to these projects.

Do they know anything about software? Do they think that open source projects need everyone in the world? It's so much worse to have mediocrities than it is to have a small number of solid people. I'd take 3 good colleagues over 12 mediocre ones any day; it's tremendously harder to debug bad code than it is to write good code.

People complain about how hard it is to deal with harsh pros like Torvalds; do they think it's easy to work with crybabies like Sharp? It's so much harder to work with them! If the good coders are insulting you, you can shut them up with good work. If Sharp decides that you're "making her feel uncomfortable" (and people take it seriously) then you're now a hostage to her fickle feelings. People who respect you will ignore some problems, but SJWs will attack you immediately even if the offense is only in their heads.

No offense to the FreeBSD CoC, but I really dislike the line “Do not take it personally”. Quite often when someone is offended, the offender will justify their statements by saying “You are just taking it personally”. I find this frequently used towards women (not saying this community necessarily).

This guy got it right, despite his evolutionary rhetoric: https://heartiste...(The above is a media write-up of a study that found that in a study of 566 gay couples, only 45 percent had made the promise to be sexually monogamous.

If it makes you feel any better a lot of those at least one partner is lying. Look there are more news stories about gay marriage than there are gay marriages. Most people are happier in their situation of getting domestic partner benefits but not having to deal with the tax penalty of marriage. If you really wanted to troll fagots get companies to drop domestic partner benefits for unmarried gay couples based on discrimination against str8s living together.

That White Cows article and comments were great. Fantastic showcase of all kinds of arguments and attendant errors

my comments are only still up because the moderator is too stupid to know how to delete comments, noticed this.:

"It is useless to employ logic and reason against people who reject logic and reason"

It's useless to use logic and reason against people who have already reduced an issue to "who? whom?" terms. Much of present company included.

The hatred for atheists here is a case in point. This is especially ironic in those who prize the Constitution, because Jefferson and several other FFs were Deists and would have been atheists were they alive today. My natural inclination is to fight against leftism, but if you want to kill me you're worse from my POV than muslims are because you present a much more immediate threat.

Youve got to be fucking kidding. It is atheists who run around saying all religion is child abuse. It is atheists who will not countenance any other opinion in education, law, science, politics, etc. Quite literally and openly, atheists are trying to genocide Christians and other religious people.

Judge finds white gun store owner liable for black lying on form, black breaking law giving gun to younger black & that one shooting 2 cops. They said they should have known the blacks where up to no good.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-shop-found-liable-in-shooting-of-two-milwaukee-police-officers/

I bet if the older black was not sold the gun he would have been suing for discrimination.

Hence my "extreme" modifier. I was originally trying to fit "bastardization" in there... which probably would have fit better.

You say pc is about shame and guilt while politeness is about manners. I'd argue from the SJW's perspective, its the exact opposite.

Example: polite society had no qualms separating themselves from prostitutes and mistresses. They were not "polite company". The SJW would see this as slut shaming and guilt tripping and demand you be ok with it or you are a bad and evil person.

@24. VD Looking to the dead tree version of the sjw manual. Any thoughts on when?

Within 2 weeks. We just hit "print" last night.

Yay! That's about two months faster than I'd imagined. Yes it's tough to call, but we hope you have enough of these. This would be a great item to troll school boards with, to serve (w/proof of service) on various offenders and their victims, to buy and donate to libraries, and so much more.

I recommend you read our Supreme Dark Lord's The Irrational Atheist. Washington and Jefferson were Deists, not even Agnostic. That said, there is a HUGE difference between those that identify as Agnostic and most of those that call themselves Atheist. Atheists preach that Christianity specifically is the most evil thing on the planet, and Science! will save us all.

Most agnostics don't believe, but don't care if others do; with the caveat of they don't want their own lives infringed on by those of faith. Agnostics are also more willing to recognize that faith built the great bulk of civilization, including the arts and sciences. You are certainly welcome to stay home on Sunday during church, but you are also welcome if you chose to attend.

I have no problem having friends with whom I disagree, the main trouble is that most people cannot discern the two. Atheists in general cannot comprehend "Hate the sin, love the sinner", and I freely admit that it can be difficult, and does not always make sense, but it is true, and similar precepts can be applied to people that are willing to amiable disagree.

Seems to me mosaic law required quite a bit of divine intervention and mostly failed anyway. Was vD endorsing or refuting with his quote?

Read Judges. They were fine as long as they followed the Law of Moses. Thinks went from bad to worse as they abandoned the Law and did what was right in their eyes, culminating in the bloody fiasco of the last chapter.

God's many interventions were putting easily corruptible people back on the right path.

The article comes across as classic concern troll. Ok, their first infiltrator and maybe a couple others were bounced. Now he wants to heckle them into some lame CoC from outside articles. I like the idea that they have a CoC that is basically useless. It's kind of like holding a parking spot, but nobody ever gets to use it.

No offense to the FreeBSD CoC, but I really dislike the line “Do not take it personally”. Quite often when someone is offended, the offender will justify their statements by saying “You are just taking it personally”. I find this frequently used towards women (not saying this community necessarily).

Do you really mean that e.g. denying a child a life-saving transfusion on religious grounds is NOT child abuse? From the froth on your mouth I would not be surprised if you're teaching kids that athiests want to kill them, while those same atheists are trying to save them from fanatical parents.

"It is atheists who will not countenance any other opinion in education, law, science, politics, etc."

Hogwash. Atheists and sectarians agree on many things, and the First Amendment is designed to KEEP PEACE between sects by restraining what any of them can do using secular law. Science is a completely a-religious activity; religious beliefs never enter into it if you're doing it right, only what you can measure. This is why it works (and likely why Muslims fail at it so badly). And we know that you "cdesign proponentsists" can be just as lying and underhanded as SJWs, though you lack their competence and get slapped down (strangely, the decision has been deleted from the court website).

Your problem is that you're as fanatically attached to the idea that your beliefs are what make you good and your opponents are all evil as any SJW; it's all about the feelz. Sanity is slowing down and asking yourself "is the world really this way, and if so, am I wrong about what God says and wants?" Admitting you could be wrong is the first step. Even the heliocentrists were wrong, but less wrong than geocentrists. We only learned better by collecting evidence and filtering it through reason (call it dialectic if you like).

"Quite literally and openly, atheists are trying to genocide Christians and other religious people."

What you say is frankly ridiculous. Most of my family is Christian. My mother was one to the end of her days. A wise man once said, someone who can make you believe absurdities can get you to commit atrocities. This is why many of the absurdities you believe scare me. Do you think I want a legal defense against you carrying out your beliefs on me? You bet your ass I do.

@44

"Individual rights are incompatible with this solution."

There are essentially no individual rights in the Haredi community in New York, and abuses like kiddy-diddling run rampant as a consequence.

@55

"Atheists preach that Christianity specifically is the most evil thing on the planet, and Science! will save us all."

Liar. I've read hundreds of atheist articles and a number of books, and none of them—NONE—have said any such thing even once. Further, there are a number of ex-muslim atheists who know otherwise and aren't quiet about it. Of course, if you want to make Christianity as oppressive as Islam then you've just offered your un-named atheist source a chance to prove him right, haven't you?

"Most agnostics don't believe, but don't care if others do; with the caveat of they don't want their own lives infringed on by those of faith."

That is also most atheists. Even Dawkins wrote "Why there's probably no God" (emphasis added). Now, in the light of the murderous goals professed in @11 why should I take your claim as anything BUT projection?

"Jefferson and several other FFs were Deists and would have been atheists were they alive today"

That is, of course, the conventional wisdom. Given their contrarian nature, however, it seems just as likely, if not more so, that they would be among those pressing against the easy tide of present atheism, given the often mindless bigotry and smug ignorance that characterizes it. They weren't much for convention.

EP, I offered you amiable disagreement, you LYING BASTARD. You choose war with faith, not the other way around, you WARMONGER. Of course, you won't read Vox's book The Irrational Atheist, because he's a Christian, and therefore he have a point about faith and godlessness.

There is no murderous intent. Careful reading reveals the words "opt-in". Such a society would proselytize, seeking all who will agree to peace, but would not go abroad seeking for monsters to destroy; they do that well enough on their own. If you want your individualistic society, go right ahead and keep it. It's going to get hotter, though, and eventually turn literally radioactive.

But if you seek entry into this society, and the law is explained to you, and the purpose thereof, and you agree to it, and begin to enjoy the benefits of a stable, peaceful society, and at the annual assembly when the law is read in the hearing of all, you agree to it, including the penalties of the law, and it is later discovered that you speak against the law because you're an atheist and it just ain't FAAAAIR that you can't do this or that or the other, then it is just to kill you, just as it is just to excise cancerous cells from the body. After all, you literally asked for it when you agreed to the penalty.

You mention some irrelevant child diddling example as though pedophilia were not right now being pressed upon the nations through the philosophy of individual rights. I wonder what the main proponents' religious views are? http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

Well, that's an awful lot of remote psychologising. I dont observe much in the way of logic (engineering) or pathos (poetry), so perhaps your name is like that of the Central Intelligence Agency? As one Russian character famously noted: more indicative of what they seek than what they possess ...

You may be right that an individualistic society would be rather "radioactive". However, allow me to point out we no longer live in the time period where masses of religious fanatics can easily overcome pockets of mavericks and rebels. With our present technology, it would take only a handful of disgruntled homosexual "freaks" to cause serious problems for your society.

Engineer Poet has the right idea, Christians are as fanatical as SJWs. They can't help but make everything about themselves. They only see what they want to envision, and they only use their intellect in the direction of producing theories which justify their own belief system. I don't blame them though, as I know exactly what it feels like to be bound by an offer you can't refuse, with the threat of "eternal damnation".

For as long as Christians categorize the rest of us as "heathen unbelievers ought to be killed", they will never find any rest from discord and strife.

Jefferson and several other FFs were Deists and would have been atheists were they alive today

Nonsense. Obviously men as intelligent and rational as the Founding Fathers would have seen the wisdom of believing exactly the same thing I believe. They'd see right through the silly beliefs other people have.

Looking to the dead tree version of the sjw manual. Any thoughts on when?

Within 2 weeks. We just hit "print" last night.

Extraordinarily good news. Get ready to observe the relatively new phenomenon of "dual-purchasing," i.e. people who buy in e-book format, and then purchase the same book again when it comes out in paper form. Good stuff!

To an ingenopath Christian, the "Mosaic law perfection" argument is a troubling one, due to its color of divine authority. Thus an effective answer must deal with that level.

God's design did not fail. His bronze age sociological design succeeded in building a religious society that lasted until the iron age Roman Empire set the stage for the new covenant. God's objectives did not include Jews ruling the world.

Jesus said that those who came after would do greater works. Design objectives have changed, historical context has changed. "Mosaic law perfection" must therefore stand or fall on its merits, without appeal to authority. The English and American politico-legal traditions are Bible infused, and represent legitimate evolution - including the concept of government limited by citizen rights.

@77 - The fundamental problem with individual rights - note the phraseology - is it weaponizes the individual against the whole.

So you get what you're seeing around you today: dwindling numbers willing to discipline themselves and forgo immediate advantage in favor of the long-term survival, stability, and peace of the whole, which is dividing up along tribal lines in preparation for war, thus eliminating the last barriers to personal ambitions.

Also, @53 - Vox was shit-testing me. He made an aggressive-sounding yet largely neutral statement to see if I was contending for his crown, which would have been indicated if I had attacked him.

I'm not interested in hierarchical jockeying. What I am interested in is truth.

When you understand that hierarchy is the natural and inevitable result of fear, then one easily identifies hierarchical jockeying as an attempt to insulate oneself from abuse while maximizing opportunities to perpetrate it, or threaten such.

"Game" is nothing more than putting on a display that implies to women that one is higher in the social hierarchy than they are. Since women desire stability and security, of course they're going to avail themselves of opportunities to insulate themselves from abuse while maximizing their potential to threaten, or accomplish, abuse against others.

And if one takes it far enough, one sees that both Vox and his enemies are engaged in the same program - that of ascending or maintaining position in a social hierarchy to, again, insulate themselves from abuse and position themselves to credibly threaten or actually perpetuate abuse against others.

Yes, water is wet.

But there is another way - the way taught by Jesus - however, very few are interested in trying it. Because it involves doing things which run directly contrary to jockeying for position in the social hierarchy, but rather enjoins accepting abuse without meting it out again in any form or fashion - indeed, he specifically asked that we return good for evil.

He said if we love him, we will keep his sayings (John 14:21); if we don't love him, we won't keep his sayings (John 14:24). And if we keep his sayings, we will be made into what he is (Luke 6:40).

What good would Mr. Miyagi have been to Daniel had Daniel not done what he was asked to do (Luke 6:46)?

"If the founders were deists then, there is no reason to believe they would not be deists now."

Uh huh. And Barry Soetoro is a 'Christian' . . . just like most of Congress.

LOL!

But, but . . . they SAY they're Christians, doesn't that make it so? :O) The righties sure cling to the whole FF/Constitution thing. Like that'll save them.

'Jefferson and several other FFs were Deists and would have been atheists were they alive today'

Functional atheists, yes. Wouldn't have admitted it while seeking public office, of course. Jefferson despised and rejected Jesus, and made it very explicit in his writings. And that was the general flavor of the FFs, who were a mix of weak deists and others not even pretending. A significant number were masonic operatives and many of the planning-meetings of those times took place in local masonic halls. Not exactly altars to Jesus, to say the least.

I share your disinterest in hierarchical jockeying. I assume you have average or narrowish eye spacing and deep sockets.

I think your critique and analysis is great. I only think the appeal to God's authority is invalid, which I don't recall whether you even made.

I disagree that Mosaic law is enough. In my analysis, Kaczynski was right but didn't go far enough. The same technology that created civilization poisoned it: agriculture -> scale. My solution is nested syssitias. Within that framework, I don't care whether individual rights or Mosaic law is applied.

You're a fascinating character and I invite you to my forum, to expound at length. Otherwise I will simply copy what you've written here for my files.

As for your anti-hierarchy, it sounds like you may be occipital dominant. I view hierarchy vs. flat as sociobiologically relative, and reject an appeal to Jesus as pro-flat. But then, I and Vox are both hierarchical.

@77 - Also, I made no appeal to authority. I explained the law was the result of a goal coupled with complete knowledge of the obstacles to obtaining that goal, and such obstacles are rationally understood by empirical observation of human behavior and incentive structures.

@81 - No technique of ascending in a hierarchy, nor maintaining position in a hierarchy, pass the golden rule analysis. Jesus explicitly said whoso would be greatest shall be the least of all, and the servant of all.

Because that's God. He's not the alpha in a social hierarchy, but a willing slave to all; a universal sucker, a universal cuckold, who gives unto all men liberally and upbraids not if they ask believing they will receive. That's the golden rule.

And this is one reason almost nobody keeps the golden rule. They're more interested in being top dog on their little heaps of dirt. Well, eventually there's someone younger, smarter, faster, stronger, or there's more of them, and you will fall; death levels us all in the end as well. But I'm suspecting the real reason is that people are not quite fully convinced there is a God.

And the only defense against the golden rule by Christians, from whom one would naturally expect obedience to the teachings of Jesus, is to claim Jesus was lying, or something rhetorically equivalent - "he didn't mean that, he didn't mean what he was saying, he meant that spiritually and not literally, he was speaking metaphorically," &c. &c.

Oh well. God's looking for those who will of their own free will and choice obey his teachings. He's not looking for loyalists, partisans, cheerleaders, the self-seeking who profess his name while seeking hierarchical ascendancy.

I think your analysis is mistaken, that you are interpreting the Source through your particular sociobiological fragment. Every fragment can do this, yet no fragment is the whole. Just as different ape sociobiologies give rise to different moral applications, so with men.

As your anti-hierarchy position intensifies, so does the likelihood of occipital back. Either that, or very puppydoggish front. Based on absence of butthurt, digit ratio appears low, neutral at highest.

Jesus said different things to different audiences. The sermon on the mount was to a particular audience. To his disciples, he said sell your cloak and buy a sword - yet he did not speak to those particular disciples, at least not at that particular moment. To the centurion, he said he had found no greater faith. In the Old Testament, he was the jealous God of genocide. Hardly the universal cuckold. Yet also, God sends the rain and sunshine to good and evil alike.

Yes, overall it's quite clear that you're an occipital back. You are not saying that everyone gets into heaven; you're saying that hierarchical folks aren't allowed.

Christ is to be preached to all nations, from the Goblins of Wiccam Fensboro to the Mongol steppes to the African huts to the imperial palace of Rome. I encourage you to read the link and other posts about cultural adaptations of Christianity on that site. Paul adapted Semitic Christianity to the Greeks - this work has not ended. Diversity, not homogeneity.

I'm saying the hierarchical, who wish to ascend over their fellow beings, will get that society in the end - the one where everyone seeks to ascend over everyone else to insulate themselves from abuse, and from which to credibly threaten, or perpetuate, abuse.

Indeed, the preaching of Christ is the immigration program of the kingdom of Heaven. First, you must believe the word when you hear it. Then you must be taught the law. Then, you must agree to obey it. Then, you must demonstrate by obedience under duress that you will freely keep it. Then, you must under the most dire threat freely keep it.

And then, having established your trustworthiness in all things and in every circumstance, can you be admitted to membership in this kingdom.

Well sorry bud, there's a whole lotta honor-hierarchy in the Bible too. Equating honor-hierarchy with dishonor-hierarchy is just stupid. But that's what your kind likes to do all day long. It's tiresome. But I think ya'll might be too autistic to grasp the difference. Understanding travels down the abstraction chain but not up it. Odd because it's not the IQ per se that's missing. After all, the pack law as elaborated by Vox and Jack Donovan in The Way of Men is not exactly rocket science.

Your intolerance towards K honor-hierarchy is just as irrational and self-indulgent as the reverse.

Yes duh, what part of I am honor-hierarchical, you are honor-flat do you not understand? I am not part of your tribe, period, end of. You are trying to kick me out and say I don't belong. Well no shit! I would rather blow my brains out than belong.

I WANT you to have your honor-flat world. That's what my forum is for. Half the members are occipital backs who I welcome you to convert to Christianity. God knows occipitals have a hard time accepting religion.

You are absolutely wasting your time criticizing honor-hierarchy to honor-hierarchicals. It's like trying to convert girls into guys and guys into girls. I do not like dick. I do not like it on a house, I do not like it with a mouse. I do not like it, log I am. Please unstick your big logjam.

I'm inviting you to try a different way - the course you are on leads to eternal conflict, just as it leads to conflict now. If you don't wish a world without conflict, but value a world full of conflict just so long as you are on top, you are welcome to it.

The claims of justice will be exacted from them who will not forgive, for if you insist all debts (of honor, even) shall be paid, you shall pay yours as well.

You are doing conflict as well, RIGHT NOW. You are not universally anti-conflict, you just have a different conflict style - which is sociobiologically RELATIVE. Your conflict style is indirect and muted like that of the Barbary macaque, mine is direct and limited like that of the wolf. God created both.

"If you don't wish a world without conflict,"

I don't.

"but value a world full of conflict just so long as you are on top,"

I don't. I value honor and justice, regardless of who's on top. Hence HONOR-hierarchy.

"you are welcome to it."

The world is not honor-hierarchical, so no again.

"The claims of justice will be exacted from them who will not forgive"

Twisting instead of quoting scripture. Let me help you out with that:

From the SERMON ON THE MOUNT TO UNCOVERTED MULTITUDES OF COMMONERS:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

But he also says to the crowds:

John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement."

and TO HIS DISCIPLES (E.G. ME):

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Furthermore, Jesus' mission was to not break the bruised reed, but his next mission will be wholly different. Even in the New Testament, after his death he explains many things plainly that were confusing before. The part is not the whole.

"for if you insist all debts (of honor, even) shall be paid"

Caricature. I don't.

"you shall pay yours as well."

No I won't. Blood of Jesus.

The shape of your brain does not trump God's word. Persist in heresy and you'll piss me off.

Now for the finisher. I tolerate the internally-consistent sociobiological mores of others. Therefore God, whose sociobiology is certainly different than man's, will tolerate mine. You tolerate only the sociobiology of your own kind. Therefore God will measure it back to you in kind, and reject your fleshy arrogance. For as you measure it out, so shall it be measured back to you.

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for this is the law and the prophets."

Yes, moron. I would that others tolerate internally consistent K selected sociobiological diversity. You would that others (including God!) conform to yours, which is internally inconsistent.

---

While we're on the subject of trolling VP, I retract my suggestion/question that using Facebook and Twitter is immoral. That would constitute preemptive quitting, not an effective boycott. Wikipedia falls into the latter category because it is an ineffective anti-SJW platform for us and has a reasonably ok replacement.

I am ambivalent regarding my cross-examination of VD on his slippery usage of preferred "racism" definition, but greatly prefer his current mexican-Indian card defense, and employ something similar.

Your argument against any hierarchy being biblical doesn't make sense when you consider the explicit hierarchy defined by marriage; husband leads, wife and household submits. In return the husband is supposed to render love and protection to the wife.

In projects, someone has to lead. If nothing else, just to coordinate activities and resources. Arguably, the project team has willingly submitted to the hierarchy imposed by the project manager.

I challenge you to find anything that happens with more than one person that doesn't require some leadership & submission.

"Is it wrong that i just read Engineering Poet's post in the voice of Walter White?"

I live without television and barely recognize the name, so yes: wrong.

@62

"Well, it's fitting considering Walter and Engineer-Poet are both nihilists"

You don't know a thing about me, so you make things up. You haven't even bothered to read my blog, a public record of some of my thoughts for over 11 years now. You've just exposed yourself as a spouter of ignorant twaddle and a bigot. Congrats!

@63 Beef with whom? From the big names to the bloggers I once used to read, I never encountered what you speak of (though you can find almost anything at the fringes if you dig deep enough). AFAIK your beef is with something that does not exist, and if it does it is likely a false-flag operation by theists. Now, are you going to distance yourself from murderous Mr. Log? He most certainly exists and is here in this discussion.

@64 Deism AFAIK was more or less a belief that $deity set the universe in motion and sat back to watch. There's precious little practical difference in moral and ethical implications between that and modern cosmology. I especially don't see how the conviction that the public's moral fitness determines what kind of society they make (and deserve) would be in any way influenced by knowledge of the Big Bang and what followed.

I have not read Desiderius (I'm trying to get through Will Durant on ancient Greece ATM) and can't offer an opinion.

@66

"EP, I offered you amiable disagreement, you LYING BASTARD."

The fuck you did. You offered a cherry-picked (unreferenced and possibly faked) gross extreme as the norm. I quote you in @55 : "Atheists preach that Christianity specifically is the most evil thing on the planet." That is a complete lie and (worse) you know it. The worst that real atheists can claim about Christians is that they are mistaken on significant matters. You leapt from that to pronouncing that atheists are the most evil thing on the planet... you LYING BASTARD. Hey, who's always projecting again?

If you want to debate the matter, stick to facts or STFU; da feelz are irrelevant.

A careful reading reveals the words "It turns out that ... atheists, and so on, ought to be killed because given their high time preference if they were in any position to affect the administration of the law, they would alter it." No one who is born into a sect has had an option, and no one who has not repudiated you should be taken seriously.

"But if you seek entry into this society"

I was born into the society of the USA. I walked away from the batshit-crazy sect in which I was raised. Go ahead and go Amish... but YOU are the one who leaves. Like the Puritans, your excesses will be your undoing.

"you speak against the law because you're an atheist and it just ain't FAAAAIR that you can't do this or that or the other, then it is just to kill you"

IOW, sharia. English common law is superior to religious law, having kept a lhigh-functioning society together for centuries. Muslims have been murdering each other for blasphemy for a millenium plus.

@70 You get it.

@71 Sarcasm aside, deists needed a deity to explain the origin of the universe. It now looks like that "deity" can be reduced to a few lines of mathematics describing the properties of space-time. The moral and ethical difference between a diety that walked off and doesn't care and no deity at all is nil; deists would be right at home.

@72 Three US patents testify to my engineering ability.

@77 You get it too.

@89 You want the power of life and death over others. Hypocrisy much?

@96 I decided that I would rather blow my brains out than be part of the insane sect in which I was raised. Fortunately college meant freedom.

It's a commonplace that the great achievers of history were raised in/by one insane(sic) sect or another. There is something in genius that requires faith in those who nurture it, but leaves little room for faith in those who manifest it.

@104 I have no desire to read that either. Preaching bores me out of my mind, and even the small "diversity" doses stuck in e.g. Orson Scott Card's recent releases give me hives. My strengths and interests are elsewhere, and my interest in SJWs is only to get them out of my life so I can enjoy it. The SJWs are trying to "challenge my prejudices" (which are actually conclusions formed from a lifetime of experience) too; I don't need it from you.

My nightstand already has more reading material on it than I'm likely to finish in my lifetime, and the only thing likely to change that is something like having to spend weeks in a bomb shelter with no electronics. If that's the case I'm more likely to dig into stuff like "Less than words can say".